Comparative real-world outcomes of dupilumab versus endoscopic sinus surgery in the treatment of severe CRSwNP patients

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Clinical Otolaryngology Pub Date : 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1111/coa.14172
Eugenio De Corso, Davide Paolo Porru, Marco Corbò, Claudio Montuori, Gabriele De Maio, Rodolfo Francesco Mastrapasqua, Marco Panfili, Camilla Spanu, Giuseppe Alberto Di Bella, Giuseppe D'Agostino, Alberta Rizzuti, Giulio Cesare Passali, Jacopo Galli
{"title":"Comparative real-world outcomes of dupilumab versus endoscopic sinus surgery in the treatment of severe CRSwNP patients","authors":"Eugenio De Corso,&nbsp;Davide Paolo Porru,&nbsp;Marco Corbò,&nbsp;Claudio Montuori,&nbsp;Gabriele De Maio,&nbsp;Rodolfo Francesco Mastrapasqua,&nbsp;Marco Panfili,&nbsp;Camilla Spanu,&nbsp;Giuseppe Alberto Di Bella,&nbsp;Giuseppe D'Agostino,&nbsp;Alberta Rizzuti,&nbsp;Giulio Cesare Passali,&nbsp;Jacopo Galli","doi":"10.1111/coa.14172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Management of severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) has changed significantly in recent years, with different treatments now available including biologics and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), although there are still few comparative studies. We aimed to compare 1-year outcomes of patients with severe CRSwNP treated with dupilumab or ESS plus intranasal corticosteroids (INCS).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In this retrospective, real-life, observational, cohort study, we enrolled 101 patients with severe CRSwNP who were treated with INCS and either ESS (<i>n</i> = 49) or dupilumab (<i>n</i> = 52). The following outcomes were considered: nasal polyp score (NPS), Sino Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22), visual analogue scale (VAS) for specific symptoms, Sniffin' Sticks identification test (SSIT), need for oral corticosteroids (OCS) and local eosinophilia detected by nasal cytology.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>ΔNPS was significantly higher in the surgery group up to 12 months when the difference with dupilumab group was no longer significant (ΔNPS: 4 vs. 4.1). ΔVAS rhinorrhoea, ΔVAS smell and ΔSNOT-22 were significantly higher in the dupilumab group at 12 months (<i>p</i> &lt; .05). SSIT scores were significantly better in the dupilumab group starting from the first month of follow-up (<i>p</i> &lt; .05). In the dupilumab group, only 6.1% of patients had detectable local eosinophilia compared to 57% in the surgery group alongside with a lower need for OCS (16.3% vs. 61%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Both dupilumab and ESS were effective in improving outcomes in patients with severe CRSwNP over 12 months. Nevertheless, patients treated with dupilumab had greater improvement in terms of SNOT-22, VAS rhinorrhoea, VAS smell and SSIT scores, with better control of local inflammation and less need for OCS.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10431,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Otolaryngology","volume":"49 4","pages":"481-489"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/coa.14172","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Management of severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) has changed significantly in recent years, with different treatments now available including biologics and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), although there are still few comparative studies. We aimed to compare 1-year outcomes of patients with severe CRSwNP treated with dupilumab or ESS plus intranasal corticosteroids (INCS).

Methods

In this retrospective, real-life, observational, cohort study, we enrolled 101 patients with severe CRSwNP who were treated with INCS and either ESS (n = 49) or dupilumab (n = 52). The following outcomes were considered: nasal polyp score (NPS), Sino Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22), visual analogue scale (VAS) for specific symptoms, Sniffin' Sticks identification test (SSIT), need for oral corticosteroids (OCS) and local eosinophilia detected by nasal cytology.

Results

ΔNPS was significantly higher in the surgery group up to 12 months when the difference with dupilumab group was no longer significant (ΔNPS: 4 vs. 4.1). ΔVAS rhinorrhoea, ΔVAS smell and ΔSNOT-22 were significantly higher in the dupilumab group at 12 months (p < .05). SSIT scores were significantly better in the dupilumab group starting from the first month of follow-up (p < .05). In the dupilumab group, only 6.1% of patients had detectable local eosinophilia compared to 57% in the surgery group alongside with a lower need for OCS (16.3% vs. 61%).

Conclusions

Both dupilumab and ESS were effective in improving outcomes in patients with severe CRSwNP over 12 months. Nevertheless, patients treated with dupilumab had greater improvement in terms of SNOT-22, VAS rhinorrhoea, VAS smell and SSIT scores, with better control of local inflammation and less need for OCS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在治疗重度 CRSwNP 患者时,比较杜匹单抗与内窥镜鼻窦手术的实际效果。
导言:近年来,严重慢性鼻鼻窦炎伴鼻息肉(CRSwNP)的治疗方法发生了很大变化,现在有了不同的治疗方法,包括生物制剂和内窥镜鼻窦手术(ESS),但比较研究仍然很少。我们的目的是比较重度 CRSwNP 患者接受杜必鲁单抗或 ESS 加鼻内皮质类固醇(INCS)治疗的 1 年疗效:在这项回顾性、现实生活、观察性、队列研究中,我们招募了 101 名重度 CRSwNP 患者,他们接受了 INCS 和 ESS(49 人)或杜匹单抗(52 人)治疗。研究考虑了以下结果:鼻息肉评分(NPS)、Sino Nasal Outcome Test-22(SNOT-22)、特定症状视觉模拟量表(VAS)、嗅棒鉴定测试(SSIT)、口服皮质类固醇(OCS)需求以及鼻腔细胞学检测到的局部嗜酸性粒细胞增多。结果:手术组的ΔNPS明显较高,直到12个月后,与杜必鲁单抗组的差异不再显著(ΔNPS:4 vs. 4.1)。12 个月后,ΔVAS 鼻出血、ΔVAS 嗅觉和ΔSNOT-22 均明显高于杜普鲁单抗组(p 结论:杜普鲁单抗和 ESS 均能有效治疗鼻出血:双鲁单抗和ESS均能有效改善严重CRSwNP患者12个月的预后。不过,接受杜普鲁单抗治疗的患者在SNOT-22、VAS鼻出血、VAS嗅觉和SSIT评分方面的改善更大,局部炎症控制得更好,对OCS的需求也更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Otolaryngology
Clinical Otolaryngology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
106
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Otolaryngology is a bimonthly journal devoted to clinically-oriented research papers of the highest scientific standards dealing with: current otorhinolaryngological practice audiology, otology, balance, rhinology, larynx, voice and paediatric ORL head and neck oncology head and neck plastic and reconstructive surgery continuing medical education and ORL training The emphasis is on high quality new work in the clinical field and on fresh, original research. Each issue begins with an editorial expressing the personal opinions of an individual with a particular knowledge of a chosen subject. The main body of each issue is then devoted to original papers carrying important results for those working in the field. In addition, topical review articles are published discussing a particular subject in depth, including not only the opinions of the author but also any controversies surrounding the subject. • Negative/null results In order for research to advance, negative results, which often make a valuable contribution to the field, should be published. However, articles containing negative or null results are frequently not considered for publication or rejected by journals. We welcome papers of this kind, where appropriate and valid power calculations are included that give confidence that a negative result can be relied upon.
期刊最新文献
Should Diagnostic Rigid Oesophagoscopy Continue to Form Part of Panendoscopy? Risk Stratification of Suspected Head and Neck Cancer Referral Letters: A Prospective Cohort Study. The Effect of Using Perioperative Platelet-Rich Plasma on Wound Healing Rate and Prevention of Salivary Fistula Formation in Patients Undergoing Partial Parotidectomy. 'How Long Do I Have?' - Examining survival outcomes in laryngeal cancer patients managed with non-curative intent in Northern UK: Insights from the Northern Head & Neck Cancer Alliance Retrospective Study. Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1